Social liberalism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Social liberalism, also called new liberalism[1][2] (as it was originally termed), radical liberalism,[3] modern liberalism,[4] or in North America and the United Kingdom simply liberalism, is a branch of liberalism which contends that society must protect liberty and opportunity for all citizens and that the state may have a role on this. For social liberals the lack of education, health or employment are seen as major a threat to freedom as state compulsion and coercion. Like other liberals, social liberals support free markets, private entrepreneurship and a small state. Social liberals also support civil rights, human rights and civil liberties, particularly in opposition to traditional values and beliefs.
Social liberals, therefore, support a mixed economy of mainly private enterprise with some state provided, guaranteed or regulated public services. For example, some social liberals defend obligatory universal health insurance, with the state paying a basic health insurance to the most poor of the society. Like all liberals, social liberals believe in individual freedom as a central concept. In the process, they expect legitimate governments to provide a basic level of welfare or workfare, health and education, supported by taxation, intending to secure economic opportunities for all, enable the best use of the talents of the population, prevent revolution, or simply for the perceived public good and accept some restrictions in economic affairs, such as anti-trust laws to combat economic monopolies and regulatory bodies or minimum wage laws. Moreover, the accumulation of wealth by a small group is seen as the consolidation of power within a small faction of society and, therefore, seen as a threat to liberty.[5][6]
Social liberalism forms the core of the somewhat wider movement of left-liberalism, with which it is often (if not usually) conflated and has been a label used by progressive liberal parties in order to differentiate themselves from classical liberal parties, especially when there are two or more liberal parties in a country.
[edit] The birth of social liberalism
In Britain, in the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century, a group of thinkers known as the New Liberals made a case against laissez-faire classical liberalism and in favor of state intervention in social, economic and cultural life. The New Liberals, who included T.H. Green and L.T. Hobhouse, saw individual liberty, especially as positive liberty, as something to be achievable only under favorable social and economic circumstances.
The poverty, squalor and ignorance in which many people lived made it impossible in their view for freedom and individuality to flourish, and the New Liberals believed that these conditions could only be ameliorated through collective action coordinated by a strong welfare-oriented interventionist state.[7]
[edit] Social liberalism versus classical liberalism
Classical liberalism believes that the provision of negative freedom constitutes liberty and is therefore a strictly laissez-faire philosophy. Social liberalism however sees a role for the State in providing positive liberty for individuals.[6] They believe that lack of positive rights, such as economic opportunity, education, health-care, and so on can be considered to be threats to liberty.[2]
Classical liberals such as Nozick, Mises, Hayek and others reject social liberalism as a true liberalism. For these authors government has no duty to intervene in society to aid the disadvantaged as this means taking wealth from others (as taxes). They also consider that interfering in the market is destroying freedom and doing this to make people free is self-contradictory.[8]
[edit] Social liberalism versus conservative liberalism
Both share the concern with the freedom of the individual, but while social liberalism is appropriate for describing some liberal parties that are left-of-centre on economic issues and support a broad interpretation of democratic rights, Conservative liberalism emphasizes economic freedom and tends to be right of centre. For example, Conservative liberal parties, such as the Dutch People's Party for Freedom and Democracy and the German Free Democratic Party adopt an economically conservative agenda, advocating a minimal role for the state in the economy.[3] Some authors, like Merquior, also claim that conservative liberalism is based on the concept of negative liberty - ("where there is no law there is no transgression"), moral pluralism, progress, individualism, and accountable government, while social liberalism focuses both on the illegitimacy of a tyrannical government that uses prerogative power and on the social conditions that make such tyrannical government possible.[10]
[edit] Social liberalism versus neo-liberalism
Social liberalism (also known as New Liberalism) is very different from the ambiguous term neoliberalism, a name given to various proponents of the free markets and also to some conservative opponents of free markets, such as mercantilistic conservatives, in the late 20th century's global economy. Neoliberalism has been used to describe the liberal economic policies of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. As a body of thought, neoliberalism advocates positions contrary to many of those taken by social liberals, especially with regard to the former's commitments to free trade and dismantling of government "social" programs.
[edit] Social liberalism versus social democracy
The basic ideological difference between social liberalism and social democracy lies in the role of the State in relation to the individual.
Social liberals value liberty, rights and freedoms, and private property as fundamental to individual happiness, and regard democracy as an instrument to maintain a society where each individual enjoys the greatest amount of liberty possible (subject to the Harm Principle). Hence, democracy and parliamentarianism are mere political systems which legitimize themselves only through the amount of liberty they promote, and are not valued per se. While the State does have an important role in ensuring positive liberty, social liberals tend to trust that individuals are usually capable in deciding their own affairs, and generally do not need deliberate steering towards happiness.
Social democracy, on the other hand, has its roots in socialism, and (especially in democratic socialist forms) typically favours a more community-based view. While social democrats also value individual liberty, they do not believe that real liberty can be achieved for the majority without transforming the nature of the State itself. Having rejected the revolutionary approach of Marxism, and choosing to further their goals through the democratic process instead, social democrats nevertheless retain a strong skepticism for capitalism, which they believe needs to be regulated (or at least "managed") for the greater good. This focus on the greater good may, potentially, make social democrats more ready to step in and steer society in a direction that is deemed to be more equitable.
In practice, however, the differences between the two may be harder to perceive. This is especially the case nowadays as many social democratic parties have shifted towards the centre and adopted one version of Third Way politics or another.[11]
[edit] United States
Modern liberalism in the United States is highly similar to the European definition of social liberalism. The agendas of European social liberals and modern American liberals tend to be almost identical, with both taking a distinctly left-of-center stance on social issues, whilst taking a more centrist stance on economic issues.[13] Since the ideological center of the United States lies further to the right than that of Western Europe, policies considered centrist, or even right-wing, in Europe may be considered left-of-center in the U.S. Universal single-payer health care, for example, is considered a largely centrist policy in Europe but distinctly center-left in the U.S. Social democrats and socialists may also be labeled as "liberal" in the U.S. but constitute only a small minority of the American left. Liberals in the U.S. constitute roughly 19% to 26% of the population and form circa 46% of the Democratic base.[14]
Like European social liberals, most modern American liberals advocate cultural pluralism, diplomacy over military action, stem-cell research, the legalization of same-sex marriage, secular government, stricter gun control and environmental protection laws as well as the preservation of abortion rights.
However, there are also some relevant differences. For example, American liberals tend to be rather divided on free trade agreements and organizations such as NAFTA.[14], while the international social liberals are very strong supporters of free trade [15]. Also, while most liberals oppose increased military standing and the display of the Ten Commandments in public buildings, the Democratic party still has references to religion and God on its party documents [16][17], something that goes against the clearly anti-clerical stance of social liberal parties worldwide. We can also find differences regarding immigration and cultural diversity, which while deemed positive by social liberals worldwide, is handled in a different way by the American liberals with the so called positive discrimination, which would be considered anti-liberal by other social-liberal parties, as they would consider it to be an effective form of discrimination.
Social liberalism in the U.S. is most commonly embraced by college-educated professionals who have shifted the focus of the Democratic Party.[18][18] American liberals are the most highly educated and among the most affluent ideological demographics. They differ greatly from the traditional working class wing of party.[19]
The key distinction between social liberalism in a European and American sense is mostly semantic. European social liberalism in the U.S. is simply referred to as liberalism. Social Democracy and Socialism, however, may also be referred to as liberalism since Americans commonly label all ideologies of the center-left and beyond as "liberal." The term "social liberalism" is used as a synonym for social progressivism, an ideology that is often combined with social liberalism to form modern American liberalism.
[edit] Social liberal parties
Some parties which are arguably social liberal may include:
- Argentina: Radical Civic Union
- Australia: Australian Democrats, Australian Greens
- Austria: Social Liberals
- Belgium: Spirit
- Brazil: Social Liberal Party
- Canada: Liberal Party of Canada and its provincial affiliates
- Chile: Social Democrat Radical Party
- Colombia: Colombian Liberal Party
- Croatia: Croatian People's Party
- Denmark: Danish Social Liberal Party[3] [20]
- Estonia: Estonian Centre Party
- Finland: Swedish People's Party, Green League
- France: Left Radical Party, MoDem
- Italy: Action Party, Radicals of the Left, New Italian Socialist Party
- Japan: Democratic Party of Japan
- Lithuania: New Union (Social Liberals)
- Luxembourg: Democratic Party [20]
- Moldova: Social Liberal Party
- Mozambique: Social Liberal and Democratic Party
- Netherlands: Democrats 66 [3] [20]
- Norway: Venstre
- Poland: Democratic Party
- Portugal: Movimento Liberal Social
- Russia: Russian Democratic Party "Yabloko"
- Serbia: Liberal Democratic Party
- Slovenia: Liberal Democracy of Slovenia
- South Korea: United Democratic Party, Renewal of Korea Party
- Spain: Union, Progress and Democracy, Citizens-Party of the Citizenry
- Sudan: Sudan Liberal Party
- Sweden: Centre Party, Liberal People's Party
- Tunisia: Social Liberal Party
- United Kingdom: Liberal Democrats[3] [20]
[edit] Social liberal thinkers
Some notable social liberal thinkers are:
- Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832) and John Stuart Mill[8][4][21] (1806–1873) offered a seed of social liberalism.
- Emile Durkheim[22] (1858–1917)
- Thomas Hill Green[8][4][23] (1836–1882)
- Lujo Brentano[4] (1844–1931)
- Bernard Bosanquet (1848–1923)
- Pieter Cort van der Linden (1846–1935)
- John Atkinson Hobson[8][23] (1858–1940)
- John Dewey[8] (1859–1952)
- Friedrich Naumann (1860–1919)
- Leonard Trelawny Hobhouse[8][4][23] (1864–1929)
- Gerhart von Schulze-Gavernitz[4] (1864–1943)
- William Beveridge[8] (1879–1963)
- Hans Kelsen[24] (1881–1973)
- John Maynard Keynes[8][24] (1883–1946)
- Carlo Rosselli (1899-1937)
- Bertil Ohlin (1899–1979)
- John Hicks (1904–1989)
- Isaiah Berlin (1909–1997)
- Norberto Bobbio[24] (1909–2004)
- Miguel Reale (1910–2005)
- Pierre Elliot Trudeau (1919–2000)
- John Rawls[8][21] (1921–2002)
- Don Chipp (1925–2006)
- Karl-Hermann Flach (1929–1973)
- Richard Rorty (1931–2007)
- Conrad Russell (1937–2004)
- Ronald Dworkin[21] (* 1931)
- Amartya Sen[25][21] (* 1933)
- José G. Merquior[24] (1941–1991)
- Bruce Ackerman[21] (* 1943)
- Dirk Verhofstadt (* 1955)
[edit] Views of social liberals today
In general, contemporary social liberals support:
- An economy consisting mainly of private enterprise, but with government owned or subsidized programs of education, healthcare, child care etc for all citizens.
- Regulatory bodies over private enterprise in the interests of workers, consumers and fair competition.
- Free trade.[15] (not supporting a laissez-faire free market)
- A basic system of social security.
- A moderate level of taxation.
- Environmental protection laws (although not always to the extent advocated by Greens).
- Fairly open stances toward immigration and multiculturalism stemming from social liberal tendency to be civic nationalists (as opposed to ethnic nationalists).
- A secular and progressive social policy, including support for comprehensive sex education, gay and lesbian rights, universal health care, reproductive rights, abortion, stem cell research, abolition of capital punishment and (sometimes) euthanasia, while supporting gun control.
- A belief in the existence of victimless crimes (e.g. drug use and prostitution) and many social liberals call for the decriminalization or outright legalization of these practices.
- Decentralized decision-making.[3]
- Internationalism.[3] (Oppose extreme and aggressive nationalism)
- (In Europe) A federal European Union.[3]
- A foreign policy supporting the promotion of democracy, the protection of human rights and where possible, effective multilateralism.
- As well as human rights, social liberals also support social rights, civil rights and civil liberties.
[edit] Further reading on social liberalism
- Hobhouse, L. T. (1994). Liberalism and Other Writings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 0521437261.
- Merquior, J.G. (1991). Liberalism Old and New. Boston: Twayne Publishers. 0805786279.
[edit] References
- ^ Not to be confused with neoliberalism, a very different concept which has a similar name[1]
- ^ a b Shaver, Sheila (July 1997). "Liberalism, Gender and Social Policy" (PDF). EconPapers.
- ^ a b c d e f g h Marks, Gary and Wilson, Carole (July 2000). "The Past in the Present: A Cleavage Theory of Party Response to European Integration" (PDF). British Journal of Political Science 30: 433-459.
- ^ a b c d e f Richardson, James L. (2001). Contending Liberalisms in World Politics: Ideology and Power. Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publishers. 155587939X.
- ^ Hobhouse, L. T. (1994). Liberalism and Other Writings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 0521437261.
- ^ a b McGowan, J. (2007). American Liberalism: An Interpretation for Our Time. Chapel Hill, NC: North Carolina University Press.
- ^ The Routledge encyclopaedia of philosophy, p.599
- ^ a b c d e f g h i Adams, Ian (2001). Political Ideology Today (Politics Today). Manchester: Manchester University Press. 0719060206.
- ^ Slom, Hans (2000). European Politics Into the Twenty-First Century: Integration and Division. Westport: Praeger. 0275968146.
- ^ Merquior, J.G. (1991). Liberalism Old and New. Boston: Twayne Publishers. 0805786279.
- ^ See, for example, "The overlap between social democracy and social liberalism".[2]
- ^ Pew Research Center, Spreadsheet, 2005 poll. Retrieved on 2007-07-13.
- ^ Judis, B. J. (11 July, 2003). The trouble with Howard Dean. Salon.com.. Retrieved on 2007-07-19.
- ^ a b Pew Research Center. (10 May, 2005). Beyond Red vs. Blue.. Retrieved on 2007-07-12.
- ^ a b Liberal International. The Liberal Agenda for the 21st Century.
- ^ Strong at Home, Respected in the World, Democratic Party, 2004, <http://www.democrats.org/pdfs/2004platform.pdf>
- ^ The Charter & The Bylaws of the Democratic Party of the United States of America, Democratic Party, 2005, <http://a9.g.akamai.net/7/9/8082/v001/democratic1.download.akamai.com/8082/pdfs/20060119_charter.pdf>
- ^ a b Judis, J. B. & Teixeira, R. (June 19, 2007). Back to the Future. The American Prospect.. Retrieved on 2007-08-19.
- ^ Pew Research Center. (10 May, 2005). Beyond Red vs. Blue.. Retrieved on 2007-07-12.
- ^ a b c d J. Kirchner, Emil (1988). Liberal parties in Western Europe. Avon: Cambridge University Press. 0-521-32394-0.
- ^ a b c d e Cardoso Rosas, João (2008). Socialismo ou liberalismo social?. DiarioEconomico.com. Retrieved on 2008-05-21.
- ^ Seidman, S. (2004). Contested Knowledge: Social Theory Today. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
- ^ a b c James Hobson. Retrieved on 2008-05-19.
- ^ a b c d (1996) Liberalism in Modern Times: Essays in Honour of Jose G. Merquior. Budapest: Central European University Press. 185866053X.
- ^ Fotopoulos, Takis (10 2004). "Why an Inclusive Democracy? The multidimensional crisis, globalisation and inclusive democracy". The International Journal of INCLUSIVE DEMOCRACY 1 (1).
